According to Fox News, the rupture between the two women — who had bonded as young aristocrats long before they became royal brides — is revisited in an expanded edition of royal historian Andrew Lownie’s book “Entitled,” which examines the turbulent lives of the former Duke and Duchess of York and the collateral damage within their circle. Lownie argues that the breakdown between the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York was not a passing quarrel but a permanent breach, rooted in what Diana saw as a profound betrayal by a woman she had once trusted as a confidante and co-conspirator against an often hostile royal establishment.
Fox News Digital contacted a representative for Sarah Ferguson for comment, while a Buckingham Palace spokesperson reiterated to the outlet that the palace does not comment on books.
LEFT-WING GWU COMEDIAN BOASTS OF ‘CONGRATUDOLENCES’ CAKE FOR DEAD LINDSEY GRAHAM
June 09, 2026
Lownie writes that the friendship collapsed after Ferguson published her 1996 memoir, “My Story,” in which she discussed her relationship with Diana despite the princess’s clear objections. “The two women, once close, had not spoken for months after Sarah had written about her sister-in-law, against Diana's wishes, in her memoir and made a joke about catching a verruca (wart) from one of Diana's shoes,” he noted, underscoring how even a seemingly flippant anecdote could be perceived as a violation in the high-stakes world of royal image-making.
OLIVE GARDEN’S ‘NEVER-ENDING PASTA PASS’ SPARKS WILD SHOWDOWN OVER VOTER ID RULES
The author emphasizes that this was not a casual acquaintance but a bond stretching back to adolescence and shared family history. “The two were fourth cousins and had known each other since they were teenagers — their mothers had been at school together — and shared the experience of their mothers being denied custody of their children,” Lownie wrote, suggesting that early emotional wounds had helped cement their connection long before the cameras arrived.
WATCH: MAMDANI SPARKS OUTRAGE BY WEIGHING NETANYAHU ARREST IN NEW YORK
According to Lownie, the publication of “My Story” marked a point of no return. He contends that the sisters-in-law never reconciled after the book’s release in 1996, a year before Diana’s death at age 36 in a Paris car crash, leaving their estrangement frozen in time and fueling decades of speculation about whether the rift might otherwise have healed.
TRUMP AND FIFA CHIEF DROP BOMBSHELL VERDICT ON US WORLD CUP — LEFT MELTS DOWN INSTANTLY
Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told Fox News Digital that Diana’s anger went beyond wounded pride and extended to what she saw as a breach of trust involving her children. He said the princess suspected Ferguson of “selling stories” and was “angered by mentions of her sons in the book,” a red line for a mother who, despite her own willingness to challenge the monarchy publicly, remained fiercely protective of Princes William and Harry.
AFTER RATINGS COLLAPSE AND CHURCH MOB SCANDAL, DON LEMON NOW EYEING OVAL OFFICE (VIDEO)
Fitzwilliams added that Diana was not inclined to offer second chances once she believed a boundary had been crossed. Diana ignored Ferguson’s apologies, he claimed, and “If she had wanted to renew their friendship, she would have,” implying that the princess’s silence was a deliberate and final judgment rather than a temporary cooling-off.
British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard told Fox News Digital that the memoir was less a solitary offense than the culmination of deeper, long-simmering tensions. “It was the bigger picture that prompted Diana to cut ties with Sarah,” Chard explained. “They'd survived a huge amount together. However, the memoir brought their private tensions into public view. It was the final straw, and alarm bells rang as Diana read conversations referring to her sons.”
HILLARY CLINTON CRITICIZES TRUMP'S ELECTION SPEECH, DRAWING STRONG REACTIONS
For Diana, Chard said, the issue was not merely embarrassment but personal security in a world where leaks could be weaponized by the press and palace alike. “‘Diana's privacy was her safety,’” Chard shared. “She felt Sarah was leaking personal information and trading on their conversations. Diana was fastidious about controlling her narrative. She used private information strategically.”
Chard argued that Diana came to see Ferguson’s exuberant storytelling as a liability in an environment already stacked against her. “Diana felt 'Calamity Jane' Fergie, the great storyteller, was capable of revealing deeply personal details that could negatively affect her life. In Diana's mind, she had no choice but to cut ties with her once-trusted partner in crime and kindred spirit. She was protecting her image,” Chard said, framing the decision as an act of self-preservation rather than cruelty.
Lownie recounts that the women’s friendship predated their royal roles and initially flourished as Diana struggled to adapt to life inside the monarchy. By the time Diana married then-Prince Charles in 1981, Sarah was already part of her social circle, and the young princess, isolated within the palace hierarchy, was said to be “in need of an ally” and “had already tried to make Sarah Ferguson one of her ladies-in-waiting,” an early sign of how much she wanted her friend by her side.
TOM BRADY AND LOGAN PAUL'S PUBLIC RIVALRY ESCALATES AT FANATICS FEST
The author further claims that it was Diana who engineered the match that would bring Ferguson into the royal fold. Lownie maintains that Diana played matchmaker between Sarah and the former Prince Andrew, with the couple eventually marrying in 1986, a union that initially seemed to cement the women’s status as a united front within “The Firm.”
CAMERAS ROLL AS KETANJI BROWN JACKSON SUDDENLY WALKS OUT MID-EVENT
Fitzwilliams told Fox News Digital that this shared outsider status was central to their bond. “Diana and Sarah were famously close as the two 'outsiders' in 'The Firm,'” he explained. “They plotted together against an establishment they both found confining,” a dynamic that resonated with many observers who saw the monarchy as increasingly out of touch with ordinary Britons.
MSNBC LOVEFEST BACKFIRES AS CALIFORNIA’S ‘FIRST PARTNER’ FUMBLES TRUMP SMEAR AND DOJ TIMELINE
Chard echoed that assessment, noting that their similar backgrounds and parallel experiences forged a powerful alliance. “Both from aristocratic backgrounds, they became as thick as thieves,” she said. “They were each other's confidante and wingwoman, especially after marrying into the British royal family,” a reminder that even within a hereditary system, class proximity did not guarantee comfort or acceptance.
TRUMP SPEECH COVERAGE DRAWS CRITICISM FROM SOME MAGA SUPPORTERS
Both women endured highly public marital breakdowns while raising two children apiece under relentless media scrutiny. Charles and Diana announced their separation in 1992 and finalized their divorce in 1996, while Andrew and Sarah, battered by tabloid scandals and time apart, also separated in 1992 and divorced in 1996, illustrating how the modern media environment and the pressures of royal duty can corrode even the most promising unions.
SUSAN COLLINS DEFIES GOVERNOR’S ICE ABOLITION DEMAND AFTER FATAL SHOOTING
Diana reportedly viewed Ferguson’s treatment by the press and palace as a grim preview of what might await her. She is said to have called Sarah the “canary in the coal mine,” seeing her as a cautionary tale of what happened when a royal wife fell out of favor, and as Sarah endured ridicule and increasing isolation from the royal fold, Diana feared she was witnessing her own potential fate.
DARLINE GRAHAM WEIGHS POTENTIAL RUN FOR U.S. SENATE IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Then came the books, which turned private pain into public spectacle and raised uncomfortable questions about who controls the narrative in a constitutional monarchy. Diana secretly collaborated with journalist Andrew Morton on his 1992 bombshell “Diana: Her True Story,” using the project to reveal her struggles with bulimia, mental health and a deeply troubled marriage, a move that shattered the palace’s preferred image of stoic silence and deference.
RIVAL TORCHES ABDUL EL-SAYED AS TOP 1 PERCENT INCOME, FAMILY-FUNDED SUPER PAC COMES TO LIGHT
Although Ferguson reportedly intended her references to borrowing Diana’s shoes as lighthearted, royal observers say the princess did not see it that way. Commentators told Fox News Digital that Diana found the passage deeply hurtful and believed it signaled that a long-standing bond of trust had been broken, particularly when her children were drawn into the narrative.
TOM BRADY’S CANDID SIT-DOWN WITH A FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLD “JOURNALIST” GOES OFF SCRIPT
Chard, however, believes that time and maturity might have softened Diana’s stance had she lived. “If Diana had lived, I believe they would have reconciled,” she said. “[But] they were on different paths, with Diana also being the mother of the heir to the throne. Together, Diana and Fergie had been through so much. They valued loyalty once it was earned. With time and conversation, I believe they would have come to an understanding, as they were comrades in arms for the best part of their lives.”
NEW YORK TIMES THOUGHT IT BEAT THE PENTAGON — THEN A FEDERAL COURT DROPPED THIS BOMBSHELL RULING
Royal broadcaster Ian Pelham Turner told Fox News Digital that Diana’s final years were marked by growing mistrust and a sense of being under siege. He claimed she became increasingly convinced that people within her inner circle were leaking information and that powerful forces were working to undermine her, a perception that made any perceived betrayal, including Sarah’s book, all the more intolerable.
ILHAN OMAR SILENT AS FEC FILINGS REVEAL RITZ-CARLTON STAYS, BLACKLANE CARS AND A STUNNING CASH TRAIL
“‘She could not trust anyone,’” he said. “So, in some ways, self-isolation was necessary in her mind, including her friendship with Sarah. And Sarah’s book did not help matters, almost confirming the emotions in Diana’s mind. Should Diana have been alive today, personally, I feel the friendship with Sarah would have rekindled. An older and wiser Diana would have found peace and real love with another,” Turner added, suggesting that distance from the palace machine might have allowed both women to rebuild.
TRUMP DEMANDS NBC AND ABC LOSE BROADCAST LICENSES AFTER REFUSING TO AIR HIS PRIMETIME SPEECH
For her part, Ferguson has acknowledged the estrangement and expressed regret that it was never resolved. In her 2011 memoir “Finding Sarah,” the former duchess admitted that she and Diana had not spoken for a year before the princess died, a silence that now hangs heavily over her recollections of their relationship.
“‘I never knew the reason, except that once Diana got something stuck in her head, it stuck there for a while,’” Sarah wrote, as quoted by People magazine. “‘I wrote letters, thinking whatever happened didn’t matter, let’s sort it out,’ she wrote. ‘And I knew she’d come back. In fact, the day before she died, she rang a friend of mine and said, ‘Where’s that Red? I want to talk to her.’”
Ferguson insisted that, despite the rupture, the core of their relationship remained intact in her mind. “‘In any sibling relationship, there are ups and downs and peaks and troughs, but we were always steadfast in our friendship. We never let the sun go down on too many heated discussions. Our bond was never broken,’” she wrote, framing their connection as something deeper than a temporary estrangement could erase.
In the years since Diana’s death, Ferguson has repeatedly spoken of her late friend with affection and loyalty, often in ways that contrast with the more revisionist narratives favored by some progressive commentators who seek to recast Diana primarily as a victim of tradition rather than a complex figure navigating it. Their friendship may have fractured in the princess’s final years, but Sarah has devoted decades to keeping Diana’s memory alive and defending her legacy against both tabloid caricature and political appropriation.
Chard noted that Ferguson remains one of the most vocal champions of Diana’s character, a stance she reiterated to Fox News Digital in 2023. “‘I think people might be surprised to know how hilarious she was,’” Sarah said of her friend “Dutch” at the time, using the affectionate nickname that underscored the intimacy they once shared.
“‘There was no one who could make me laugh harder or more immediately than Diana. She was incredible and one of life's true soul mates for me,’” Ferguson added, a reminder that behind the headlines, leaks and memoirs were two women trying to navigate an ancient institution, an aggressive media and their own human frailties.
For conservatives who value loyalty, personal responsibility and the importance of family, their story is a cautionary tale about what happens when private trust collides with public exposure — and how, in the end, even princesses and duchesses pay a steep price when the bonds that once anchored them are tested beyond repair.
